In the past few years, the Selective Service System has made explicit much that in the past has been implicit in the regulations. The SSS has shown that it is not merely rereading the old regulations; it now feels empowered to create new ones. As the intensity of the war escalates, the SSS appears to expect a similar increase in its own power. The recent hyperactivity of the organization has attracted unprecedented criticism from many quarters, and, quite understandably, repercussions from its actions have been felt on almost every level of college life.

Graduate school deferments will probably be granted only to students in the exact sciences and related fields. Those planning to do graduate work in urban sociology or in the economics of underdevelopment, for example, will be asked to do the fighting while the chemical engineer and the mathematicians stay home. The SSS has decided that only the latter are in the "national interest."

LBJ's committee on mental health has strongly recommended revision in the draft structure. Psychologists have stressed that draft pressure is a dangerous threat to the mental well-being of college students and has probably been a factor precipitating psychiatric difficulties.

The once traditional leave of absence now means military service. Many who would have taken a year off to work or to "find themselves" have been forced to remain in school. The fantastic increase of drugs on campus coincides with jumps in manpower calls for the war in Vietnam. It is probable that drug experimentation on campuses would not have reached present levels had students been able to escape the confines of academia temporarily.

The intensified enforcement of SSS regulations has not been enough--the rules have been extended to include punitive measures. General Hershey's original directive "suggested" the reclassification of demonstrators and obstructors because their actions were, again, not in the "national interest." The exercise of the right of dissent changed their status from that of a student deferred in the national interest to that of a person in a "nonessential" endeavor.

That a suggestion from General Hershey might be adhered to quite strictly within the SSS is indicated by a state SSS director's remark: "The two greatest men in my life," he told me, pointing to two photographs on his wall, "are the late John F. Kennedy and General Hershey."

Vociferous criticism, ranging from generally conservative newspapers to the ACLU, has probably halted some punitive action that might have followed Hershey's comments. Already, however, a few marchers in Washington have been re-classified; draft resisters were re-classified 1-A from 4-F without a physical examination; a member of a midwestern SDS chapter was re-classified by virtue of his membership; anti-war demonstrators at the University of Michigan have been re-classified; and the list could go on and can be expected to grow. Many guidelines have been thrown overboard by the SSS in its concern to "unify" the nation by squashing dissent.

The Machine

When a machine works mechanically, the young men it works on at least know what to expect. Now, however, when the General in charge of the machine must be reminded of civil liberties; when pressure from other branches of the government cannot cause him to withdraw a statement in clear violation of the freedom of speech; in short, when the machine no longer works mechanically but on the emotions of war, concerned young men have no defense.

The question is forced upon us: when has an institution, with its present structure, outlived its usefulness? Is the SSS (established in its present form during the 1940's in the context of a declared war and national emergency) no longer set up in the interest of the country? Is the SSS itself perhaps not in the "national interest" which it is, paradoxically, empowered to define?

II

Criticism directed at the SSS has focussed on three major vulnerable points. First, regulations concerning conscientious objector status are the most clearly anachronistic. It is still virtually impossible for a CO applicant to receive I-O classification with-out belief in a traditional supernatural being and without some affiliation with a formal religious organization. Unless the CO application states complete pacifism based on "verifiable" religious belief, it is almost certain that his local board will feel justified in rejecting his request.

This causes special concern today for young men because, although the political aims of the present war are complex and hidden behind misinformation, the question as to whether or not the tactical methods of the war are justified is an open issue of individual morality. Many young men are finding our military tactics opposed in every respect to their moral code.

Camus

"The end justifies the means only if the relative order of importance is reasonable," wrote Camus in his Notebooks. Destroying a country allegedly in order to save it from itself does not seem reasonable to CO applicants and many others.

The second major criticism, heard less around colleges, is directed at the system of student deferments. The inequity of deferring those whose family background and financial status have led to their college attendance has been pointed out by groups as disparate as U.S. Senators and black militants. The result of these deferments is historically interesting: upper and middle-class males have managed to avoid military service altogether (until recently), while the lower classes provided almost all the regular soldiers. By-passing students is, of course, said to be in the national interest, but many contemporary critics have viewed the procedure primarily as a very effective means of forestalling the potentially unified criticism of the SSS by college students--forestalling it until after graduation when unity is gone.

Recently, the middle and upper-class escape has been selectively blocked. The major means for avoiding military service until after the 26-year cut-off, graduate school deferments, has been threatened for all non-science students. The conservative logic runs as follows: A particular cultural approach--in this case, technological, specialized, scientific--has led to America's position of political and economic power in the world. In order to maintain and further that position, the same attitude must be enforced by the SSS on this generation to ensure the future of our nation.

The third criticism of the SSS, and in many ways the most crucial, is directed against its overtly military interpretation of "national interest." Again, the encounter with outmoded attitudes reveals that a once necessary, primarily militaristic, stance towards the world has been institutionalized in many arms of the government and the economy.

The SSS has interpreted service in the "national interest" to include only military service and related "defense" endeavors. For example, linemen for civilian telephone companies who work at bonus salary for the benefit of foreign-based military installations are often, thereafter, permanently deferred. The SSS considers their work to have furthered the "national interest." On the other hand, a college student who works on a volunteer economic development program in South America is not considered by the SSS to have performed any service in the national interest.

This criticism had not been widespread prior to the war in Vietnam, because the non-military service was at least allowed to continue. But now the issue has become crucial: college students and graduates wishing to work in nonmilitary, international service have been unable to do so for fear of being drafted. Countless individuals have been refused deferments for educational, agricultural, or technical work in underdeveloped countries, and so returned to the once-safe haven of academia. By default, we are leaving the leadership to others. And, as in Vietnam, others who take the defaulted leadership might well be considered "enemies" in the future.

III

Vietnam itself is not the subject here. Because of the very questionable nature of the war, criticism is often exclusively directed against immediate events without any consideration of long-range effects. Allowing the opinion to prevail that our Vietnam policy is not in itself a tragic mistake in foreign policy, it is nevertheless clear that the war is causing a frightening series of mistakes. By its power to "channel" young men into the "essential" industries, the SSS is forcing this college generation to continue its lopsided manpower emphasis on technological science at the expense of social science, and on the industrial-military complex as opposed to peaceful, humanistic endeavors.

It is perfectly clear that technological science and the industrial-military complex have accomplished much: they have propelled this nation to the position of power it now holds; and have enabled this nation to be a potential force for world peace and progress. But it is equally clear that a forced emphasis on those endeavors is not going to solve the problems which beset the future. Only rarely is the cause of a condition also its cure.

Technological science and the military-industrial interests have protected and preserved the values of our country. But now they seem to determine those values--and, more immediately, the careers of this generation.

The manpower of this generation, to use the SSS's terms, is being "channeled" into the "essential" endeavors. Essential for what? one asks; and the SSS itself answers most articulately. In an SSS document entitled "Channeling," recently cautiously withdrawn by the SSS, the organization shows it is proud of "developing more effective human beings in the national interest." The SSS document repeatedly mentions that by manipulating deferments it has the same control which "foreign systems" achieve by means of coercion. Still quoting the SSS's own document: their goal is to make the individual feel as if he is "standing in a room which has been made uncomfortably warm (i.e. hot). Several doors are open, but they all lead to various forms of recognized, patriotic service to the Nation."

Later referred to as the "club of induction," this method "has been used to drive out of areas considered to be less important to the areas of greater importance... those individuals who did not or could not participate in activities which are considered essential." The SSS adds that it "anticipates further evolution in this area...."

This channeling is the expression of a technological, military approach to the world situation which constitutes, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our funds and personnel are channelled into war and science, and are channelled away from economics, psychology, history, and international relations. The potential role of this country as a force with wealth and manpower which could be devoted to aiding the indepedent, nationalist development of the underdeveloped world appears to be a role which is notbeing fulfilled. Nor does it seem that it will be fulfilled in the near future because this college generation is not able to develop academically the methods to meet the problems of the future, but is being forced to orient itself towards methods of the past. This is not defaulted leadership; it is bad leadership.

If a mother teaches her daughter a strict moral code and yet encourages her to walk in a mini-skirt and tight sweater around Harvard Square on Saturday evenings, she is likely to have trouble with her daughter. In the same way, this society tells its sons of American values; of their obligation to help the poor both inside and outside its borders. At the same time, however, the SSS encourages America's sons to pursue methods which do not support these values or fulfill that obligation, and actually prevents them from developing methods which can better achieve these ends. Thus it is not surprising that this society is having "trouble" with its youth. What is surprising is that it is not having more.

Trouble Shooter

Because of the power the SSS was given decades ago, it is well equipped to deal with "trouble" now. Its power to discriminate against whom it pleases is evident on the local board level. "That there is significant opportunity for local board members to discriminate is demonstrable," says the ACLU. "Specifically, the great discretion of local boards lies in their power to determine (1) classifications and (2) procedures." In some parts of the south, where draft boards have systematically excluded Negroes from draft boards, this discrimination, primarily against civil rights workers, has been the most blatant.

The same powers which can discriminate against civil rights workers can and have been used against antiwar activists. Legally, those powers are hard to fight. Appeal can only be made to higher SSS boards, and judicial review of local board action is "so limited as to be non-existent," says the ACLU in their publication Civil Liberties. To exhaust the legal possibilities within the SSS, which is the only way to receive a court hearing, one must refuse induction and thereby be subject to prosecution.

IV

The SSS's euphemism "deferment" is defined as "putting off, postponing, delaying." Students are allowed to "put off" the questions posed by the SSS for four years, or longer. During that time a whole spectrum of reactions appear within the student population. The "I-want-to-serve" reaction, due to the unpopularity of the war in colleges, concerns only a small minority of students. The "ROTC" reaction argues that service is inevitable, so one might as well order as be ordered; and one might as well earn as much as possible. Those who illustrate the "adaptation" reaction follow closely all developments in the SSS, and try to orient their educational and occupational plans in order to evade the long arms of the SSS. The "CO" reaction is for those whose primary concern is moral or religious, and the number of applicants has risen steadily over the last few years.

Because a number of college students find the war and the SSS opposed to their values, the "we-won't go" reaction is becoming more wide-spread. A recent Crimson poll of the Harvard senior class revealed that roughly a quarter of the seniors would go to jail or leave the country, if all other alternatives failed, rather than fight in the present war. Finally, the "resistance" reaction makes it clear that many have decided that the time to say no is now. The hundreds of cards which have been turned in or burned signify not only unwillingness to fight, but also unwillingness to tacitly support an organization which forces others to fight.

It seems that the nation's "trouble" with its youth concerning the draft is growing. This is partly because more students are wondering if the SSS is something more than an insignificant aberration from the values of our society. More and more are concluding that the SSS does represent the prevailing outlook, and that the only way to prevent the disastrous fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy is to resist the organization which most inflexibly enforces that outlook--the SSS.

The increased "trouble" comes from the concerned members of this generation who are beginning to realize that the effects of the SSS's definition of "national interest" are not to be limited to the present. Quite the opposite. Because the military-science attitude affects primarily the youth of our country, not only the progress of the present but the progress of the future is being stagnated.

When a young man computes the cost of the Vietnam war, to see if Camus' relative order of importance of means and ends is indeed reasonable, he must calculate as sacrificed much more than American dead, South and North Vietnamese dead, billions spent for destruction, and the dissipated energy of dissent. To find the real sum, a young man must also compute the cost for a few decades to come--the cost of decades provided with men who were forced to learn to approach the world in terms of the past, rather than in terms of the future.

For the college as well as the student, the issue of the war has finally been brought home--if not by radicals, then at least by the SSS. Students who are concerned about occupational choice cannot fail to see the sacrifice of academic freedom. Finally college administrations, if their concern is education rather than simply the supply of "more effective human beings," cannot fail to see the sacrifice of academic goals.

If either students or colleges blindly fail to see this, they will be defaulting their role as progressive leaders in this country, just as this country is defaulting that role in the world.